Yes. As I stated in a past thread, I'm taking supernatural designers off the table.

This limits you to a universe with a finite history. This means that at some point in the past your designer had to come about by natural means. I don't think it is much of a stretch to suggest that this first designer would be as complex as we are, biologically speaking, and I would expect that this complexity would include irreducibly complex systems as well.

For all intents and purposes, it appears to me that we are those First Designers.

For if life was designed by engineers with a radically different kind of intelligence – a form of intelligence entirely foreign to that of the human species – it would be a hopeless task to find traces of engineering in cellular life.

I completely disagree. Humans are not limited to a nested hierarchy when they make designs, and neither would another intelligence. I would expect that their vehicles and technology would also not fall into a nested hierarchy just as our technology does not. Only evolution consistently produces a nested hierarchy (for species that do not participate in horizontal genetic transfer). At best, you would have an alien race dropping off LUCA 4 billion years ago and never touching life from that point onwards.

quote:But I agree with Paulk who said that you do not need a term for your position. Ideas that matter need names. The private musings of a tiny handful of eccentrics do not.

That's not exactly what I said. My point is that if Genomicus had a reasonably specific hypothesis then he could name his position after that. If he doesn't then it is far better to not give his position a specific name than give it a name that is both too broad and misleading due to it's very strong association with creationism.

It has been postulated that we are all part of a computer simulation on a similar basis...

That is, to be sure, an interesting idea you linked to.

Re:

What do you make of that variation of your design proposition?

I don't think that's really a variation of the specific hypotheses I'm proposing. It is, however, a variation of design propositions in general.My thoughts on it? It's interesting, but I think one would have a hard time testing that idea. And it would be a more general design proposition. In other words, if we are living in a computer simulation, then I'd tentatively propose that within this simulation, biological life was intelligently designed.

I'll read your other thread later - But in the meantime - Can you give one example of a logical consequence (i.e. prediction) that applies to a designed entity but which would not be expected to be true for a non-designed entity?

The question is not hypothesis specific, so I'll modify it a bit. The hypothesis that, say, the bacterial flagellum was directly engineered by rational design of proteins (and similar techniques of protein design), predicts a specific pattern of divergence times (as determined by molecular clocks) for various flagellar parts and their homologs. The same goes, of course, for any other molecular machine (e.g., the F-ATPase, replisomes, ribosome, etc.).

Given this it should be a simple matter of testing for this attribute in order to detect design - No?

Doesn't matter. Did life emerge all by itself or did something make it?

It does matter, though. If life was engineered by the aforementioned metaphorical wrench, then we could plausibly detect this through the methods of science. But the idea that life was magically poofed into existence is not testable.

See, some of you seem to think that design by physical tools and methods is indistinguishable from design by a magic wand. This is not correct. If life was engineered by specific mechanisms (e.g., rational design of proteins), then we can plausibly detect hallmarks of this within genomes.

What about theistic evolutionists? "Life evolved and that's how God created it". Creationists or not, in your opinion?

Not really.

Now, given all that: I wouldn't have a problem, for the purposes of sites like this one, with defining creationism as mututally exclusive with evolutionism. That is, if you're willing to accept that life evolved, then you're not a creationist. But that's more of a practical thing than anything else.

Your definition of creationism seems to be a bit idiosyncratic IMHO, and not one that will be found in dictionaries of the English-speaking world. Just sayin'.

This limits you to a universe with a finite history. This means that at some point in the past your designer had to come about by natural means. I don't think it is much of a stretch to suggest that this first designer would be as complex as we are, biologically speaking, and I would expect that this complexity would include irreducibly complex systems as well.

I'm not arguing from irreducible complexity.

At best, you would have an alien race dropping off LUCA 4 billion years ago and never touching life from that point onwards...

See, some of you seem to think that design by physical tools and methods is indistinguishable from design by a magic wand. This is not correct. If life was engineered by specific mechanisms (e.g., rational design of proteins), then we can plausibly detect hallmarks of this within genomes.

Well, wouldn't that depend on the waver of the wand, and whether s/he was into what you describe as "rational design of proteins"?

I can see no reason why someone using purely naturalistic methods would wish to create a LUCA clearly distinguishable from the LUCA that would be created by someone with magical powers. If two people have exactly the same end in mind, and one uses magic to achieve this end and the other doesn't, how would we distinguish between the two different means by looking at the two identical ends?

Your definition of creationism seems to be a bit idiosyncratic IMHO, and not one that will be found in dictionaries of the English-speaking world. Just sayin'.

But actually that is how the word "creationist" is used. No-one on either side uses it just to mean someone who believes in a Creator. Maybe that's what it should mean, but it doesn't. A creationist is one who denies evolution and asserts fiat creation of species, or "kinds", or whatever jargon they're using this week. And if you actually look at those "dictionaries of the English-speaking world", you will see that this is so.

The hypothesis that, say, the bacterial flagellum was directly engineered by rational design of proteins (and similar techniques of protein design), predicts a specific pattern of divergence times (as determined by molecular clocks) for various flagellar parts and their homologs.

What specific pattern? And (more importantly) why is this pattern a necessary consequence of conscious design?

Geno writes:

The same goes, of course, for any other molecular machine (e.g., the F-ATPase, replisomes, ribosome, etc.).

So, when I tell you that your not using a word as other people use it, then you go into how it doesn't have to mean that and you can use it other ways. But then when I go and use a word another way, you throw the dictionary at me. Don't find that a bit hypocritical?

Doesn't matter. Did life emerge all by itself or did something make it?

It does matter, though. If life was engineered by the aforementioned metaphorical wrench, then we could plausibly detect this through the methods of science. But the idea that life was magically poofed into existence is not testable.

You don't know that. And maybe we could test whether the magic poofing results in purple smoke for some thing but green smoke for others. When things go poof, do the atoms form together from the surrounding ones or are they emerging ex nihilo? Does the poofer use somatic components, or is it by will alone? How fast do things poof into existence? How often? And so on. Just because you call it magic doesn't mean its not testable.

See, some of you seem to think that design by physical tools and methods is indistinguishable from design by a magic wand. This is not correct. If life was engineered by specific mechanisms (e.g., rational design of proteins), then we can plausibly detect hallmarks of this within genomes.

What if the magic wand used specific mechanisms?

What about theistic evolutionists? "Life evolved and that's how God created it". Creationists or not, in your opinion?

Not really.

Well, the wiki page on creationism that I got to from your link has a list of Types of creationism. Not only is theistic evolution on there, but so it Intelligent Design.

Your definition of creationism seems to be a bit idiosyncratic IMHO, and not one that will be found in dictionaries of the English-speaking world. Just sayin'.

Dictionaries are descriptive, not proscriptive. My usage of the word creationist includes people like you.

Well, wouldn't that depend on the waver of the wand, and whether s/he was into what you describe as "rational design of proteins"?

I can see no reason why someone using purely naturalistic methods would wish to create a LUCA clearly distinguishable from the LUCA that would be created by someone with magical powers. If two people have exactly the same end in mind, and one uses magic to achieve this end and the other doesn't, how would we distinguish between the two different means by looking at the two identical ends?

The difference is this: if life was created by magic, then we have no reason to expect that we can detect this. There are no predictable hallmarks that would indicate life was designed by magic. On the other hand, if life's biochemical systems were designed by rational design and similar methods, there are specific hallmarks of this mechanism that we can look for.

For example, it is possible that evolution was guided every step of the way by magical powers. Both non-teleological evolution and "magical" evolution have the same result, but the former model is (a) more parsimonious, and (b) leads to testable predictions.

But actually that is how the word "creationist" is used. No-one on either side uses it just to mean someone who believes in a Creator. Maybe that's what it should mean, but it doesn't. A creationist is one who denies evolution and asserts fiat creation of species, or "kinds", or whatever jargon they're using this week.

The hypothesis that, say, the bacterial flagellum was directly engineered by rational design of proteins (and similar techniques of protein design), predicts a specific pattern of divergence times (as determined by molecular clocks) for various flagellar parts and their homologs.

What specific pattern? And (more importantly) why is this pattern a necessary consequence of conscious design?

Figure 2 of the "Nature's Engines and Engineering" thread describes the general pattern. Flagellar parts (and their corresponding homologs) that have a slow substitution rate, but that would require large modifications in order to be engineered, would be predicted to have the earliest divergence times as determined by molecular clocks. Protein parts with a fast substitution rate and that would require only minimal modifications (to be engineered from their homologs) would predicted to have late divergence times.

This pattern is not a necessary consequence of "conscious design." It is a necessary consequence of rational design of proteins. Rational design refers to a specific mechanism for engineering proteins. Directed evolution would also lead to the same predictions.

It is a necessary consequence of rational design of proteins. Rational design refers to a specific mechanism for engineering proteins.

It should not be too much of a surprise that things fit together in certain ways. The following lecture (University of Washington, 2006) shows how many paths lead to the same place. It is well worth watching.

Abstract: Mathematical computer models of two ancient and famous genetic networks act early in embryos of many different species to determine the body plan. Models revealed these networks to be astonishingly robust, despite their 'unintelligent design.' This examines the use of mathematical models to shed light on how biological, pattern-forming gene networks operate and how thoughtless, haphazard, non-design produces networks whose robustness seems inspired, begging the question what else unintelligent non-design might be capable of.

Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.

Belief gets in the way of learning--Robert A. Heinlein

How can I possibly put a new idea into your heads, if I do not first remove your delusions?--Robert A. Heinlein

It's not what we don't know that hurts, it's what we know that ain't so--Will Rogers

It is a necessary consequence of rational design of proteins. Rational design refers to a specific mechanism for engineering proteins.

It should not be too much of a surprise that things fit together in certain ways. The following lecture (University of Washington, 2006) shows how many paths lead to the same place. It is well worth watching.

Okay kewl, but I'm not sure how that's relevant to what I said with regards to rational design of proteins as the mechanism of engineering behind biochemical systems? Could you elaborate?

In other words, I would be surprised if that same principle did not extend to proteins as well.

...I'm still a bit lost as to what you're arguing exactly (I haven't watched the lecture). Put simply, if protein machines that we find in cells were engineered via the techniques of rational design and directed evolution, there are several predictions we could make. Here it should be noted that both rational design and directed evolution refer to techniques within the field of protein design. That is, directed evolution does not, in this context, mean simply evolution directed in some way. It means a specific kind of protein engineering wherein directed mutagenesis coupled with selection is used to design protein folds.